Yankton and Clay Counties have a new District County Court that also absorbs the municipal courts of Yankton and Vermillion. How is the court's annual budget split between the two counties and the two cities, and who actually does the math?
Plain-English summary
In 1968 the South Dakota Legislature created the District County Court system through Chapter 144 of the Session Laws. The District County Court covering Yankton and Clay Counties absorbed the municipal courts of Yankton (the city) and Vermillion. That created an immediate accounting question: when the new court's annual budget came due, who paid what share?
Mr. Erickson asked AG Gordon Mydland to spell out the formula and the responsibility. Mydland walked through Chapter 144 and produced a clean two-part answer.
First, the budget had to be separated into two pieces. The District County Judge's salary, set by statute at $16,500, was apportioned across both the counties and the affected cities. Everything else in the budget (court staff salaries, expenses, travel, board for the judge) fell on the counties alone, with no contribution from the cities.
Second, the apportionment of the judge's $16,500 salary used a census-based formula. The county auditor of the designated administrative county added up the full population of each county in the district plus 75% of each affected city's population. The judge's salary was then divided among the four taxing entities (two counties, two cities) in proportion to their share of that combined population.
Using 1960 census numbers, that worked out to:
- Yankton County full population: 17,551
- Clay County full population: 10,810
- 75% of Vermillion: 4,577
- 75% of Yankton city: 6,959
- Combined apportionment population: 39,897
The remainder of the budget (everything except the $16,500 judicial salary) fell on the two counties, split between them in proportion to their share of the district's total population. The duty to do the math each year fell on the auditor of the administrative county, designated by the District County Judge by January 1 of each year.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1968 under AG Gordon Mydland and interpreted Chapter 144 of the 1968 Session Laws. Subsequent statutory amendments, court reorganization, and the eventual statewide unified court system reforms have substantially changed how trial-level courts are funded and structured in South Dakota. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The 1968 District County Court system has long since been replaced. Modern court funding allocations, judicial salary structures, and the role of counties versus the state should be checked against current SDCL chapter 16 and any applicable Unified Judicial System rules before reliance.
What the opinion meant at the time
For the Yankton-Clay District County Court specifically, the opinion fixed the numerical framework that the administrative county's auditor would use each July. The judge's $16,500 salary was the only piece both counties and both cities chipped in on. Everything else came out of county funds.
For other District County Courts being stood up across the state in 1968-1969, the methodology was reusable. Identify the affected counties and absorbed-municipal-court cities; tally the federal census numbers; weight cities at 75% of population; apportion the judicial salary by share; assign the remainder of the budget to counties only.
For county auditors of administrative counties, the opinion identified their statutory duty clearly: they did the apportionment math, not the District County Judge, not the State Court Administrator (a role that did not yet exist in the same form), not anyone else.
For taxpayers and city councils, the opinion clarified that the affected cities were paying only their share of one budget line item, the judicial salary itself, not the entire court's operating budget.
Common questions
Q: Why was only the judge's salary shared with the cities?
A: The 1968 statute drew that line. Cities whose municipal courts were absorbed by the District County Court contributed only to the cost of paying the judge (because that judge now handled what would otherwise have been municipal court work). Everything else (clerks, expenses, travel, jury costs) was treated as a county-court cost and fell on the counties.
Q: Why 75% of the city population?
A: That weighting was set by the statute. It reflects a legislative judgment that the cost the city contributed should be proportionate to its share of court activity, not its share of total district population. The 75% weighting captured the fact that city residents are also counted in the county population, and avoided double-counting them at full weight.
Q: Which census figures did the auditor use?
A: The "latest Federal census." In 1968, that meant the 1960 census numbers, since the 1970 census had not yet been taken. The opinion runs through the 1960 numbers for the four taxing entities.
Q: Who designated the administrative county each year?
A: The District County Judge, by January 1 of each year. That designation determined which county's auditor would do the apportionment math.
Q: Were the cities' contributions added to their property tax bills?
A: The opinion did not detail the collection mechanics. The likely structure was that each city included its apportioned share in its annual budget and raised the funds through its normal taxing or appropriation processes. The auditor of the administrative county determined the dollar amounts; the cities and counties then funded their respective shares.
Q: What if Yankton or Clay County thought the apportionment was wrong?
A: The opinion did not provide a dispute process. As an AG opinion interpreting the apportionment formula in Chapter 144, it would be persuasive in any dispute, but a county or city could in principle have challenged the auditor's calculations in court.
Background and statutory framework
The 1968 District County Court was part of a mid-20th-century reorganization of South Dakota's trial courts. Before the reorganization, lower-court work was scattered across municipal courts, justice of the peace courts, and county courts, with inconsistent funding structures and jurisdictions. The District County Court consolidated those functions across multi-county districts and created a single judicial position with a fixed statutory salary.
The funding scheme reflected the consolidation. Cities that lost their municipal courts gained access to a more professional court system but had to contribute to its operating cost. The 75% weighting and the judge-salary-only contribution were the calibration knobs the legislature used to balance those interests.
Chapter 144 of the 1968 Session Laws set the structural parameters: an annual budget process triggered by July 1; designation of an administrative county each January; apportionment of the judge's salary across counties and cities by population-weighted formula; assignment of all other costs to the counties.
The District County Court system was itself succeeded by later judicial-system reforms in South Dakota. Modern users analyzing current court funding should look to current SDCL chapter 16 and the Unified Judicial System's administrative framework, not to Chapter 144 of the 1968 Session Laws.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- Ch. 144, SL 1968 (creating the District County Court)
Source
Original opinion text
Apportionment of District County Court budget between affected counties and municipalities whose Municipal Court has been absorbed by District County Court. Ch. 144, SL 1968
Dear Mr. Erickson:
You have requested my official opinion to determine the method of apportioning the estimated annual budget for the newly created District County Court in and for Yankton and Clay Counties, which, by virtue of the legislative enactment, will also serve for the municipal courts of the Cities of Yankton and Vermillion, within such district.
The latest Federal census shows the following population for such counties and the two affected municipalities:
Clay County Total Population 10,810
Rural Population 4,708
City of Vermillion 6,102
Yankton County Total Population 17,551
Rural Population 8,272
City of Yankton 9,279
28,361 28,361
The specific questions you have submitted are as follows:
-
What is the proper formula to be used in apportioning the costs of maintaining such District County Court between the counties and affected municipalities within such district?
-
Where does the power rest to put this formula into practice?
The answers to your questions must be found in a proper interpretation of Chapter 144 of the Session Laws of 1968. Because of the length of the particular statute, it will not be set forth in full in this opinion. Briefly stated, this statute provides that the District County Judge on before January 1st of each year must designate one of the counties within his district as the administrative county of the district. By the 1st day of July of each year such District County Judge must prepare a budget which includes his salary, expenses, and all other salaries and expenses, including travel, board, etc., related to the office. It is this budget which must be apportioned among the counties comprising the District County Court District and when, as in the case of such district of which Yankton County is a part, the costs to be apportioned to the municipalities, whose Municipal Court has been assumed by the District County Court.
The statute itself provides that each district county judge receives an annual salary of $16,500.00. A complete reading of the entire statute discloses that it is only this salary which is apportioned between the counties and municipalities within the district. All other salaries and expenses reflected in such budget are not apportioned between the several counties making up such district county court, and such affected municipalities, but are charges against the affected counties.
In order to compute the necessary amounts to be raised by taxation, from the several tax entities involved, the salary of the District County Court, Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, must be deducted from the total estimated budget.
It is the duty of the county auditor of the administrative county to compute the calculations to determine the proper share of such judge's salary between the affected counties and municipalities. To do this, to the population of the whole district is added seventy-five per cent of the population of all participating municipalities according to the latest Federal census. Then, as the statute states, such auditor of the administrative county reaches the proper charges against such counties and participating municipalities,
"By apportioning the cost of said judge's salary budget to each county and municipality on the basis of such population figures."
Translating this directive to the 1960 Federal Census-the latest Federal census-to the two affected counties and two municipalities, we arrive at the following computations:
Total population of Yankton County ………………………………..17,551
Total population of Clay County……………………………………….10,810
75% of population of City of Vermillion………………………………. 4,577
75% of population of City of Yankton…………………………………..6,959
Total population for apportioning Judge's salary……………………….39,897
Based upon the above figures, the auditor of the administrative county apportions the $16,500.00 District County Judge's salary between the affected counties and municipalities.
As to the remainder of such budget, after the deduction of the salary of the district county judge, such expenses must be borne by the counties comprising such county court district. The apportionment, as the statute states, is "based on the population of such county as to the whole population of the district according to the latest Federal census."
As the statute states, the duty to put the formula as prescribed therein into practice rests upon the county auditor of the administrative county.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon Mydland
Attorney General